[CL-801] Fix chromatic.yml externals formatting

[vleague2]

🎟️ Tracking

CL-801

📔 Objective

We noticed that a component library PR did not trigger the expected Chromatic UI Test diffs. The PR modified a file that is included in our chromatic workflow’s externals configuration, which tells Chromatic to rerun snapshots when anything in “externals” is changed because these files are processed outside of Webpack, where Chromatic sources its dependency graph from. (Docs here) The formatting for our externals didn't match what’s in the docs, so I am updating it to match.

📸 Screenshots

This first screenshot is from the PR that had the issue. It is the workflow run from the original commit that changed the file specified in externals. Notice that it sees the file changed, but does not run any story files. Turbosnap is enabled, which means all unaffected stories are skipped. Since it doesn't think anything relevant has changed, it skips them all.

The following screenshot is from the current PR, from a commit (9f5ddd7) where I made a change to that same file to test the workflow's changes. Notice that it sees the changed file and then disables Turbosnap due to finding a match in the externals config. This is the expected behavior! If you check that commit's checks in this PR, you'll see a lot of UI Tests that are now picking up diffs.

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – f3435591-97b7-4660-ba95-b8da3d04e886

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 37.58%. Comparing base (319528c) to head (2f7f38a).
Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #15736   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   37.58%   37.58%           
=======================================
  Files        3320     3320           
  Lines       94806    94806           
  Branches    14343    14343           
=======================================
  Hits        35629    35629           
  Misses      57681    57681           
  Partials     1496     1496           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud